There are few cases in which, the beneficiary of a pension or an unemployment subsidy, has had to return the aid for having breached a requirement or being in a new situation that no longer gives him the right to continue receiving the benefit. Although there are also cases where justice is put on the side of the perceptors of aid, freeing them from having to return any amount.
Regarding the latter, the Supreme Court, in a judgment this year, rejected the requests of the State Public Employment Service (SEPE), an agency that requested that a worker return 12,000 euros that he received for an administrative error through the unemployment subsidy for over 55 years (which later became the current subsidy for over 52 years).
You may be interested
The SEPE will suspend the subsidy for over 52 years and will force the amounts charged unduly to those who charge more than 888 euros
The SEPE launches an aid of 570 euros per month for people over 30 years old with few income
As explained in Judgment 924/2025, the SEPE recognized this man the aforementioned subsidy on April 15, 2015, after receiving an initial certificate of the National Social Security Institute (INSS) that proved that he complied with the necessary contribution periods to access the retirement pension in the future.
However, on February 28, 2018, the INSS issued a new certificate that annulled and replaced the previous one, indicating that the man did not really gather the required contribution period. Therefore, based on this new information, the SEPE revoked the benefit and asked the same to return the amounts perceived with the subsidy during this time. Specifically, he had received a total of 9,966.28 euros between 2015 and 2018, and the date of the judicial signal, the amount amounted to 12,030.84 euros.
The beneficiary of the subsidy claims up to twice
As the man did not agree with the claim made by the Sepe, he decided to file a lawsuit. Initially, the Social Court N. 32 of Madrid gave the reason to the SEPE, condemning the ex -beneficiary of the subsidy to return the 9,966.28 euros that he had unduly received, plus any subsequent amount.
The man did not give up and decided to claim for the second time, interposing an appeal for supplication before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid. This time, justice was right, acquitting the obligation to return the money.
This Court was based on the good faith of the beneficiary and the time elapsed, considering that it would be contrary to equity to load with the consequences of an error made by the administration itself, which would cause a serious economic damage. To do this, he applied the doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the “Cakarevic V. Croatia” case.
It was then the SEPE who decided to claim and filed an appeal for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court.
The supreme is right to man, who does not have to return any money to the Sepe
The Supreme Court, in its Judgment 924/2025, dismissed the appeal of the SEPE and re -acquitted the man to return the money they requested. That is, I didn’t have to return 12,030.84 euros for which the account was already going then.
The Public State Employment Service, in his appeal, used as an argument a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia that revoked the right to unemployment for over 55 years of a worker who was granted by mistake, ordering him the reimbursement of unduly perceived benefits.
However, the Supreme Court pointed out an important difference between both cases. While the worker who was removed from the subsidy was aware that he did not meet the requirements to perceive it, without doing anything to avoid charging, in the second case, the affected person was not aware that he was charging him erroneously, since the INSS initially certified that he met the required price requirements for his perception.
“It is not the same, certainly, to have knowledge that certain amounts are being unduly perceived, that they have no knowledge of this circumstance,” said the Supreme, determining that it was possible to apply the “Cakarevic doctrine” that protects citizens in good faith against errors of the public administration, especially when the return of the quantities can mean a disproportionate burden.